MUHAMMAD ILYAS vs CHAIRMAN, AREA ELECTRICITY BOARD WAPDA,
The petitioner, an Assistant in the Revenue office of WAPDA, was arrested in a corruption case and subsequently tried and acquitted by the Special Judge Anti-Corruption. Following his acquittal, he was reinstated in service, but the department determined his acquittal was not honourable. After issuing a show-cause notice, the department imposed a penalty of stoppage of annual increments for two years without future effect, ordered that he receive no salary beyond the suspension allowance, and treated the suspension period as leave without pay. His departmental appeal and subsequent appeal before the Service Tribunal were dismissed. The petitioner sought leave to appeal before the Supreme Court. The core legal question was whether the Service Tribunal erred in upholding the departmental penalty following a non-honourable acquittal where the petitioner admitted to handling tainted money. The Supreme Court held that since the petitioner admitted to holding the tainted money for safe custody, making him an accessory after the fact, the departmental authorities were justified in finding his conduct objectionable. The petition was accordingly dismissed, establishing that departmental action can lawfully follow an acquittal where the employee's own admissions reflect blameworthy conduct.
- Whether departmental authorities can impose a penalty following an acquittal in a criminal trial?
- Does an acquittal by a criminal court bar departmental action if the acquittal is not honourable?
- Can the period of suspension be treated as leave without pay upon reinstatement following a corruption charge?
ORDER
' SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.--The petitioner was serving as an Assistant in the Revenue office of the respondent Authority at Hafizabad. He alongwith another person was involved in a corruption case and was arrested. He was tried by the Special Judge Anti-Corruption but was ultimately acquitted.
Soon after his arrest, he was placed under suspension. After his acquittal, he was reinstated in service.
2. The department found that the petitioner's acquittal was not honourable. He was served with a show-cause notice and after taking into consideration the explanation offered by him the penalty of stoppage of annual increment for a period of two years without future effect was imposed upon him; further, it was directed that he should not be paid any salary beyond the suspension allowance and the period of suspension should be treated as leave without pay. He filed an appeal before the Service Tribunal which was dismissed. He now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
3. It is to be noticed that at the trial before the Special Judge, the petitioner did not dispute that he was present at the time when the illegal gratification was paid to his colleague and that the tainted money was recovered from his person. His explanation was that after receiving the illegal gratification his colleague had passed on the money to him for safe custody. It would thus appear that he admitted to be an accessary after the fact. In the circumstances, the departmental authorities were justified in taking the view that his conduct was highly objectionable. The learned Tribunal had therefore good reason not to interfere with the order of the departmental authorities.
In the circumstances, we dismiss this petition.